The long-running saga of the Zimbabwean government's eviction of white
farmowners is reaching its sad conclusion. While these episodes have garnered
news coverage over the last several years, they have not generated an outcry.
The overlooking of this injustice and myriad others of Mr. Mugabe's government
is not simply an affront to principle, it is a disservice to the black Africans
who stand to be the greatest losers from Zimbabwe's expropriations over the long
run. As Zimbabwe's own history shows, expropriation is not the only
route to land redistribution. A predominantly British-financed program operated
from 1980-1992, successfully resettling 62,000 families on more than 7 million
acres of land. The opposite of expropriation, this program operated on
a voluntary basis, allowing for a transition to smaller holdings and
simultaneously protecting property rights. This program ended in 1992 when the
government of President Robert Mugabe (the only president Zimbabwe has had since
majority rule — and the only one Mugabe evidently intends it to ever have)
implemented the Land Acquisition Act, which amended the constitution and
instituted government-fixed prices by depriving landowners of the right to court
appeal. With the step backward from the rule of law, the descent down
the slippery slope of expropriation was irresistible. In 1994, 45 farms were
confiscated and reportedly given to Mugabe cronies. In October 1997, Mr. Mugabe
announced the expropriation without compensation for white farmers. Despite a
September conference in Harare at which an international agreement was reached
on a resettlement program "implemented in a transparent, fair, and sustainable
manner, with regard for the law," Mr. Mugabe again threatened confiscation in
November 1998 and March 1999. In 2000, Mr. Mugabe's proposal to
expropriate land without compensation was surprisingly defeated in a
constitutional referendum. Mr. Mugabe's response was to deny protection to 1,000
farms beset by violence and squatters. In May 2000, Mr. Mugabe invoked special
powers to enforce expropriations and then ignored Zimbabwe's Supreme Court
ruling of unconstitutionality, saying, "Our party must continue to strike fear
in the heart of the white man, our real enemy." In October 2001, government
pressure forced the Supreme Court to reverse itself. The aftermath of
this sordid story is that one-third of the expropriated farms have gone to
Mugabe political supporters and 150,000 black farm workers have lost their jobs
and homes. Furthermore during the period of Mr. Mugabe's expropriation efforts,
gross domestic product fell 7.3 percent in 2001, 4.5 percent in 2000, and was
flat in 1999 with inflation over 100 percent in 2001. Half of Zimbabwe's
population needs food aid and hundreds of thousands face starvation — to which
Mr. Mugabe's response has been to interfere with international relief efforts.
Yet despite the obvious injustice and the negative results, there is no
discernible outcry over the situation. Why? If the elements of Zimbabwe's
situation were objectively presented — a group being denied basic rights on the
basis of race and in contravention of law and ethics — we would believe we had
already passed judgment through our condemnation of apartheid. But while this is
not apartheid, even though it is still gross injustice, it is the black
population that will bear the worst effects of an unjust policy.
Zimbabwe is already losing precious capital as confiscations scare out domestic
investors and deter new foreign investors. It is losing the hard
currency-earning agricultural exports (which once accounted for 40 percent of
export earnings) needed to finance its future growth. It is already losing
enormous amounts of jobs — ones it can't afford to lose with unemployment
already at 60 percent — and the training that goes with them. It is
losing food production and seeing food prices skyrocket as efficiently run farms
are shut down — exacerbating southern Africa's food crisis that threatens 13
million people. It will have to pay higher interest rates for future borrowing —
if it is able to find lenders at all. It is losing the potential to develop a
middle class by undermining all citizens' confidence that what they save they
will be able to keep. Finally, Zimbabwe is losing the rule of law — a
critical determinant as to whether a nation will become a developed country or
simply be one forever developing. And who will these outcomes most
negatively affect? Yes, the white owners of a few thousand farms will lose
everything and some 70,000 whites who lived in Zimbabwe will lose assets as they
logically liquidate their now insecure holdings. Nevertheless, the whites will
ultimately leave, taking their assets and talents with them to enrich other
nations. It is the blacks who are not Mr. Mugabe's cronies and cannot leave who
will be the long-term victims of Mr. Mugabe's actions. It is fair to
ask that, if the same disastrous policies were being perpetrated in Ian Smith's
Rhodesia instead of Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe, whether there would be a similar
lack of evident outrage within the U.N. and African Union. There is an evident
double-standard being applied to Zimbabwe today due to the inconveniently
politically incorrect role reversal of African injustice. It is sad irony that
black Zimbabweans will pay double for it — today and for countless years to
come.

When even the cosseted military turn
against him, Mugabe must think abouthis pension

Andrew Meldrum in
HarareTuesday January 14, 2003The Guardian

When Robert Mugabe
boarded a plane for an extended holiday in Thailand afortnight ago it
probably did not occur to him that by the time he returnedhis hold on power
would be in question.He seemed so firmly entrenched as president of Zimbabwe
that neitherelections nor a popular uprising could unseat him.

Now
his rule has been questioned from inside his own party and he may neverbe
thoroughly secure again.

Although Mr Mugabe has repressed domestic
opposition and outmanoeuvred theinternational forces for change, he has
apparently underestimated the threatfrom his own inner circle.

The
reports that two of his most trusted deputies, the parliamentary
SpeakerEmmerson Mnangagwa and the army chief of staff General Vitalis
Zvinavashe,have said they can get him to step down have forced him to
contemplate lifeafter power.

It cannot be very comfortable for Mr
Mugabe, but the rest of Zimbabwe isreacting with glee to the prospect of
change.

"Well, well, this is exciting," said John Makumbe, a lecturer in
politicalscience at the University of Zimbabwe.

"Now that Mugabe has
been challenged from inside his own party, he will notbe able to shake the
image that he is vulnerable.

"This should make this year very
interesting. There is some movement towardschange."

It is noteworthy
that the noises have come from two senior members of theZimbabwe African
National Union Patriotic Front (Zanu-PF).

"Zanu-PF is at wit's end to
find a solution to our crisis, but they cannotfind a solution with Mugabe in
control," Mr Makumbe said.

"Even his own party is recognising Mugabe as a
liability."

This pressure is not only from politicians but from the armed
forces, whichcarried Mr Mugabe to power in 1980.

Emmerson Mnangagwa
is a former guerrilla fighter and defence minister, whohas maintained close
ties with the military establishment. He and GenZvinavashe came to the
realisation that the rank and file, as well as manyin the officer class,
were no longer loyal to Mr Mugabe.

The reason is easy to understand. Even
the cosseted troops have families inZimbabwe. They are feeling the inflation
of 175%, they cannot get basicfoodstuffs for their families, they know rural
relations are going hungry.

They know something is rotten at the
top.

Mr Mugabe's management of the economy has enriched a handful of
cronies, butit has caused the GDP to shrink by 25% in the past three
years.

The living standard of previously comfortable Zimbabweans has
droppedaccordingly. The economic conditions which gave rise to the Movement
forDemocratic Change have now caused the military to question Mr
Mugabe'sleadership.

Mr Mugabe, 78 and in power for 23 years, has
never named asuccessor,preferring to keep everyone guessing, inside and
outside hisparty.

But this may prove to be part of his undoing,
because ambitious men inZanu-PF do not want to leave the succession to
chance.

They see that if Mr Mugabe presides over the drastic economic
decline formuch longer, popular revulsion will prevent anyone in Zanu-PF
succeeding MrMugabe.

Therefore they feel they must act now to secure
their own hold on power.

There is considerable debate on whether Mr
Mugabe approved of thesepreliminary negotiations for his
retirement.

Some suggest that he is weary of power and would like to step
down. But muchmore weight is given to the possibility that Mr Mnangagwa and
Gen Zvinavashewent behind his back.

Either way points to an end to Mr
Mugabe's time in office. If he knew andapproved of the talks, then he
accepts that it is time for him to step down.

If he did not know then he
has serious trouble that may bring about hisdownfall.

The challengers
are not men committed to democracy. They are driven by alust for
power.

"They want to return the country to some sort of normalcy so that
they andZanu-PF can have another 20 years in power," Mr Makumbe
said.

"It has nothing to do with democracy and nothing to do with a
change in theregime. They want to secure continued power."

It seems
that opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, recognised this and thatis why he
publicised the secret talks.

Although the initial talks collapsed, it
seems certain that more talks willfollow.

That is assured by the long
and restive queues for bread, maize-meal, fuel,cooking oil and the many
other basic items Zimbabweans used to take forgranted.

The scores of
thousands in the queues no longer have any confidence in MrMugabe's
rule.

The tentative negotiations are a sign that even senior members of
Zanu-PFwould rather be with those in the queues than with the president.

Ruling party and
opposition officials scrambled yesterday to deny reportsthey have been
discussing a deal to end Zimbabwe's political crisis byforcing President
Robert Mugabe to retire and forming a power-sharinggovernment.

The
reports are "not worth commenting on," General Vitalis Zvinavashe
said.Zvinavashe, the commander of the armed forces, was named by mediators
of theattempts to broker a deal as one of the two ruling party figures
promisingto deliver Mugabe's retirement.

He dismissed reports as "the
work of enemies bent on destroying Zimbabwe".

Opposition spokesman Paul
Themba Nyathi said the Movement for DemocraticChange is not involved in
negotiating an "exit package" for Mugabe.

Opposition talks with Zanu-PF
broke down last year and Zanu's nationalcouncil declared contacts closed,
Nyathi said.

"No further negotiations can take place without a fresh
mandate from theparty's national council," Nyathi said.

Although that
mandate has not been given, opposition leader MorganTsvangirai has confirmed
a "clandestine" initiative was brought to himcontaining an offer that Mugabe
would step down to clear the way for theformation of a caretaker government
and fresh elections.

He said his party could accept immunity for
Mugabe.

Tsvangirai appears not to have taken the proposal to his
colleagues, whichmight promote divisions in the opposition leadership.
Analysts say someopposition officials demand that Mugabe go on trial for
what they callmisrule and human rights abuses.

Tsvangirai said he
turned down overtures by mediators before Christmas, butafter further
contact he believed there was a case for Zimbabweans to"forget the past and
move forward".

However, he said he didn't fully trust the
offer.

"There is a lot of agitation and debate in the country. I am
hopeful it maybe more indicative of a solution at hand than at any other
time," saidTsvangirai.

HARARE, Zimbabwe Jan. 14
- Reports of a deal to end Zimbabwe's political crisis by
havingPresident Robert Mugabe retire have struck a chord in this
beleaguerednation.

Though both the government and the
opposition have strenuously deniedthe reports, many Zimbabweans were
unwilling Tuesday to dismiss them soeasily.

"It has caused a
glimmer of hope," said Brian Raftopoulos, a politicalscientist at Harare
University.

Mugabe, 78, led the nation to independence from Britain
in 1980. Butafter 23 years of his authoritarian rule, many of his
compatriots say theywould not be sorry to see him step down.

"If it's true, the old crocodile must go. Now," said Moses Bangure, astore
clerk in Harare told shoppers at his checkout counter.

The leader
of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change, MorganTsvangirai, has
confirmed what he called a "clandestine" plan by independentmediators in
which Mugabe would step down to clear the way for a caretakergovernment
followed by presidential elections within two years.

The mediators
were representing two of the most powerful figures inthe ruling party,
Parliament Speaker Emmerson Mnangagwa and Gen. VitalisZvinavashe, chief of
staff and commander of the armed forces.

According to Tsvangirai,
mediators said they had promised to deliverMugabe's
resignation.

"My own view is the offer could not have been made
without Mugabe'sknowledge and it is the beginning of a process," Raftopoulos
said.

Whatever the case, the idea won't go away
easily.

"There's a political stalemate in Zimbabwe, creating an
ideal groundfor a new initiative," Raftopoulos said.

That was
clearly the case Tuesday for a group of young doctors at astate hospital in
Harare where basic drugs, surgical gloves and othersupplies are in short
supply.

"Times are hard and it would be wonderful to see some
changes," saidone of several doctors gathered around a single copy of the
state Heraldnewspaper. He said he did not want his name used.

Businessmen and factory owners also reported an atmosphere ofanticipation
and excitement. Hopes ran high that Mugabe's departure couldlead to economic
reforms that would end the now commonplace long lines forfood and
gasoline.

Mugabe won a new six-year term in March elections.
Independentobservers said the elections were deeply flawed and the
opposition, alongwith Britain, the European Union and the United States,
said the voting wasrigged and influenced by violence and
intimidation.

The political chaos and the government's isolation
internationally hascaused shortages of hard currency and essential imports.
Disruptions in theagriculture-based economy and a severe drought have caused
acute shortagesof food.

During the past three years, Mugabe's
government has seized most ofZimbabwe's thousands of white-owned commercial
farms, calling it a justifiedstruggle by landless blacks to correct
colonial-era injustices that left4,000 whites with one-third of the farm
land.

Mugabe's ruling party, Zanu-PF, has become almost
dysfunctional butthe opposition lacks the muscle and experience to confront
it.

Tsvangirai has said the opposition would not insist on Mugabe
goinginto exile if he steps down.

Malaysia was said to have
offered Mugabe sanctuary.

Mugabe, on a visit to neighboring Zambia
at the end of a two-weekvacation in Asia on Tuesday, denied he agreed to
step down.

However, U.N. officials have confirmed that World Food
Program chiefJames Morris is scheduled to visit Zimbabwe next week and has
been told hecannot see Mugabe who would still be on vacation. Earlier, the
governmenthad said Mugabe was due back this week.

Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe's bloodthirsty cohorts are
aparticularly unpleasant bunch, but "information" minister
JonathanMoyo's food-buying spree in Johannesburg was nauseating even by
theirstandards.

Reports have it that he stocked several vehicles with
food and piggedout with his family in a hotel room. And that while people in
his owncountry are starving and food riots are breaking out.

Whatever
such behaviour says about Moyo, it also speaks volumes aboutthe regime being
run by Mugabe. It suggests that the Zimbabwean despotand his fellow leaders
are dangerously contemptuous of the feelings oftheir fellowcountrymen at
a time when sentiment on the ground is apparentlyreaching new levels of
anger. This sentiment has already manifesteditself in food riots, often a
precursor to widespread unrest.

Some commentators are seeing this as the
beginning of the end forMugabe.

If that is the case - and even if it
is not - it is time for PresidentThabo Mbeki to create some distance between
himself and Mugabe, or,more specifically, South Africa and
Mugabe.

The "quiet diplomacy" approach to Zimbabwe's troubles has
failedspectacularly, to the point where there is surely nothing to be
gainedfrom continuing with it. Mugabe now threatens much more than his
ownpeople: his buffoonery is destroying efforts to present the
Africancontinent as a place of revival and renewed hope. Given that
thoseefforts are led in considerable part by President Mbeki, it would
seemlogical that the South African leader present some distance
nowbetween himself and an ailing Mugabe.

There is also the little
matter of Mbeki's carefully craftedcredibility as an international
statesman. It goes without saying thatbeing one of Bad Bob's Buddies does
not do much for your status as aman of international standing.

All of
which will, of course, ultimately have an impact on SouthAfrica.

Other
heads of state expected to grace the occasion are from southAfrica,
Mozambique, Tanzania and Angola.
Mail and Guardian

In your dreams, says Mugabe

Harare

14 January 2003 16:01

Zimbabwe's President Robert
Mugabe on Tuesday made his first public reactionto British press reports of
alleged plans to force him out of office, undera scheme involving his close
political aides.

"I am not used to answering questions about nightmares
which are dreamt inBritain at Number 10 Downing Street. I only heard about
that in the paper,there is no truth in it," Mugabe said in response to a
question at a newsconference here.

Britain's Times newspaper reported
on Monday that a scheme had been hatchedby senior officials in Mugabe's
ruling Zimbabwe African National Union(Zanu-PF) to guarantee him immunity
from prosecution for alleged humanrights abuses in return for his
resignation and exile abroad.

"Only a few months ago, the people elected
me to serve them and it will beabsolutely counter-revolutionary and
foolhardy for me to step down," saidMugabe who is visiting for a ceremony to
honour the founding president ofZambia, Kenneth Kaunda for his role in the
liberation struggle againstBritish rule.

The Times said under the
plan, a government of national unity would becreated after Mugabe's
departure and organise elections at the end of atwo-year transition
period.

Both Mugabe's party and the opposition Movement for Democratic
Change (MDC),which was also reportedly part of the plot, distanced
themselves from thescheme.

Zanu-PF described the alleged plan as
"wishful thinking and mischief" on thepart of Britain, the former colonial
power in Zimbabwe. - Sapa-AFP

The ECB announces that England's controversial World Cup
match in Zimbabwe will go ahead.

Do you support the decision?

The ECB claim they cannot afford to boycott the match as the England team
would stand to lose up to £11m in revenue.

But the protestors who infiltrated Lord's on Tuesday echoed the view of many;
that it would be morally wrong for the contest to take place.

Violence in Zimbabwe has also escalated in recent weeks, raising safety
concerns for both England players and fans.

So is the ECB right to ignore boycott calls? And will you support England
when they play in Zimbabwe?

As we all know English cricket is not what it should be, and a loss of £11m
would shatter the last five years of work in grass roots development.

We all want our national team to be better, and this costs money. Had the
government footed the bill I think the ECB would have jumped at the chance of a
boycott. But without that compensation they cannot, as their first priority is
the continued development of cricket.

Why are people not pouring pressure on the government to do something about
the Zimbabwe problems? It should not be down to a team of sportsmen to make such
a political statement.

I think they are quite right to play, particularly as the government
will not compensate them if they don't

Paul Tomlinson,
UK

I hope that all the team go there with their morals intact, they have nothing
to be ashamed of, they are doing this for the love of their sport and their
nation. I hope they do us proud. Craig, UK

If the government wanted England to not play in Zimbabwe, they should have
let their feelings known in November when England were asked by the ICC to play
in Zimbabwe, not leave it until a month before the match.

I think they are quite right to play, particularly as the government will not
compensate them if they do not play. Paul Tomlinson, UK

It's not fair from the government to put such pressure on a non-political
organisation. If the government is so worried about Zimbabwe's human rights
record then why doesn't it impose economic sanctions on them? Sport and Politics
should never mix. Amin Ibrar, England

It's an absolute disgrace. Putting forward the sport v politics argument is a
smokescreen and a cop out. The cricketing authorities have shown themselves to
be morally bankrupt. Al, UK

Now that they have decided to go, I hope Nasser Hussain and the players have
the guts to refuse to shake hands with the Zimbabwean ministers, including
Mugabe. I would even suggest that they turn their backs on them in protest.
Howard Balkind, England

A true kick in the teeth to the £6m people Mugabe is starving in his own
country. The only thing more pathetic than the ECB is the stance of the British
government. No doubt when things go wrong it will be the UK taxpayer who'll have
to sort the mess out. Chris, UK

Shame on them - I certainly won't be supporting England in the cricket
any more

Karen, UK

I am appalled, disgusted even. I was born and lived in Zimbabwe for 27 years
so I know what I am talking about. This whole issue boils down to one thing and
one thing only - money.

The ECB are only interested in the money deals. This has absolutely nothing
to do with sport. England's cricket team isn't up to much anyway. It will be a
huge waste of time them even being there. Syd Buxton, UK

How typical that once again this comes down to money and to hell with the
horrors that are occurring against humanity. The ECB talk about sport being
singled out but surely this is an area that can highlight the tragedies
occurring in Zimbabwe to a bigger audience than the government.

Shame on them - I certainly won't be supporting England in the cricket any
more. Karen, UK

I am ashamed to be English, surely the moral issues raised here are more
important than money! Daniel Dodds, England

All parties have been forced into corners over this matter and, in truth,
everybody (except Robert Mugabe) is right and everybody (especially Mugabe) is
wrong.

There should be a boycott of Zimbabwe by England's cricketers and those of
the other countries due to play there. Nevertheless, English cricket should not
have to suffer - either financially or in terms of World Cup group points.

However, I fully understand the British government's position. Until they
implement a boycott of Zimbabwe and institute trade sanctions, they cannot order
anybody not to go there.

The only possible reason the sanctions are not in place is because it would
exacerbate the situation, which is good enough for me. The government recommends
that Britons do not visit the country but there is no embargo and there are
still flights to Harare.

No way should we visit a country that has such a man in power

Robert Walpole, England

Until the embargo is in place and/or flights are withdrawn, it is up to
individuals' consciences.

Robert Mugabe is evil, his dictatorship is wrong, and he should be stopped.
But it is not for England's cricketers (or any nation's) to take the lead in
this and simply refuse to play in that country because there will be major
repercussions for world cricket.

I just hope that everybody who goes to the games, players and fans, are safe.
This is not a certainty and for that reason, the whole Zimbabwe section of
fixtures should be moved out of the country. Joe

While I feel sorry for Nasser and the boys after the way the government and
the ECB have behaved, I nevertheless feel that Nasser and the boys are still
grown-ups who should have their own problems with playing in Zimbabwe.

I would like to think that the players have enough moral fibre as human
beings to know that playing in Zimbabwe is wrong and therefore refuse to play.
Tim, England

Why were Zimbabwe chosen to co-host the tournament in the first place? As
much as everybody is horrified by Mugabe's regime, England must go.

Whoever made the point that other businesses are still active in the country
and 'why single out cricket' is correct. Let's go in, win the game and get out.
Haven't Nasser's boys had enough this winter without being vilified for
something that is effectively beyond their control.

They are cricketers, I'm a cricket fan and I want to see Hussain lifting that
World Cup at the end of it. Toby, UK

Zimbabwe is a country in the grip of a harsh dictator, there is no doubting
that. However, until there is a complete boycott of all relations with Zimbabwe,
including diplomatic, there is no way the government can expect our cricketers
to boycott these matches.

Indeed it will be the ordinary Zimbabweans who suffer as they will be denied
the opportunity to watch the world's best cricket teams compete in their
country.

I firmly believe that the ICC was wrong in scheduling games in Zimbabwe given
the current political climate. A Griffin, UK

No way should we visit a country that has such a man in power, the cricketers
should use the time to coach our younger players instead. Christopher
John Low, England

If the British Government will not take any action to isolate or boycott
Zimbabwe, the England cricket team should play there. Robert Walpole,
England

The ICC made a big mistake in allowing the World Cup to take place in
Zimbabwe

Rasik Naik, USA

I reckon Nasser's men should play in Zimbabwe because if we pull out they may
not want to come over in the summer. Gareth, Wales

I think it is abhorrent that any team plays in Zimbabwe. The situation in
Zimbabwe is even worse than the South African regime that was boycotted for
years. But money talks and the money men will triumph over morals I feel.
Richard Johnson, England

The government obviously feel that the financial consequences of imposing a
ban are too high. Therefore they have made a decision on this matter. It is a
cricketer¿s job to play cricket and not make political decisions. Without any
prevention from the government, they should play to win and good luck to
them.Chris, UK

I am a Zimbabwean who left that country eight months ago and I would like to
say that it is too late for any team pull out now. I think the ICC made a big
mistake in allowing the World Cup to take place in Zimbabwe. With the petrol
crisis worsening and food shortages, it may cause riots.

Will the England commentators be allowed to cover the England game? I doubt
it. Unfortunately the matches will have to take place with some matches having
an empty ground. Rasik Naik, USA

Mugabe has made it known that Britain is an enemy of his. Would you step foot
or send your children to ones house who has called you an enemy? Let sanctions
be sanctions. I say no cricket in Zimbabwe. Ali, USA

The England players should refuse to shake hands and take part in
photo-calls. This will deny Mugabe the publicity he desires. But it is not the
place of the British Government to tell the English cricket team who they can
and cannot play, especially when to pull out would incur heavy costs which the
government would not help to pay. Robert, England

Our cricket team is not good enough to forfeit games and the points,
we must aim to win has many games has we can

Robert, UK

When Neville Chamberlain was Prime Minister in the 1930s, the England
football team played Germany in Germany and were told to give the Nazi salute as
the German anthem was played, which they did. If the British cricket team plays
in Zimbabwe, we will have reached a similar low. Richard, Brit in USA

I think it would be a better idea to stay back in England rather than losing
to Zimbabwe. I don't think England cricket fans fancy watching England losing to
Zimbabwe. So stay back and cover it up with some political scenario.
Ravindra Perera, Sri Lanka

Since the government refuses to cover the ECB then the ECB should go. However
the national team should not do anything that will promote the Mugabe
government, this includes shaking hands with any government minister. Our
cricket team is not good enough to forfeit games and the points, we must aim to
win has many games has we can. Robert, UK

To play or not play in Zimbabwe is a question for the ICC. They must evaluate
the safety and logistical issues that relate to a country with no fuel, severe
shortages of basic foodstuffs and a political climate that is very hostile to
the countries of two of the teams playing in Harare.

The ICC must decide if playing the Cricket World Cup in Harare in 2003 is
beneficial for the game and that the safety and wellbeing of the players and
supporters is assured.

If the ICC say "play" then Nasser and his team should play. Remember those
who play and support cricket in Zimbabwe are generally not those who support
Mugabe. Craig Henderson, New Zealand

If Hussain is the captain and encourages his team to pull out, this is a
political act, not a sportsman's act. He is picked to play cricket. If he wants
to be political, then he must resign and take up politics. William
Jones, England

The government should be bold and stop the team playing in
Zimbabwe

Jim, England ex
Zimbabwe

Nasser Hussain accuses politicians and ECB executives of 'faffing about'.
Maybe they are, but to him this should be irrelevant. If he has a moral
conscience, and can display his own free will, then he should not go, because he
will be at risk of making an innocent but serious contribution to Mugabe's
propaganda activities. It is an invalid argument to justify going by saying that
many other British businesses operate in Zimbabwe. The fact that they are
morally bankrupt does not mean more should follow their example. Rob,
UK

The government should be bold and stop the team playing in Zimbabwe. They
should be ready to compensate ECB for any loss, after all it was the government
which dithered until the last minute.

It is no good passing the buck to the ECB who in turn are trying to pass it
on to the players. It is just not cricket ! Rajan, UK

Either way I hope that whether the teams do play there or not, Zimbabwe
deserves the greatest press coverage possible to show the rest of the word what
a bleak situation this once prosperous country is in. Jim, England ex
Zimbabwe

The English cricket team is representing the country of England. The
political leadership of England has decided that Mugabe's government is not
doing anything untoward, otherwise they would have imposed economic and
political sanctions, wouldn't they? If the government hasn't boycotted trade
with Zimbabwe, why should they expect the cricket team to boycott cricket there?
Scott Montgomery, Australia

Put cleanly cricketers play cricket, politician play politics

Zeyn Adam, Zimbabwe

This is not a dictatorship and the government has given clear advice. The
England cricketers are adults and should stop going on about being naive when it
comes to politics.

They have a duty to make up their own minds and it's a simple moral choice.
They should not go and they should not fudge the issue and try to make us, the
taxpayer, foot the bill. Cricket is just sport. Vernon Moyse, UK

Nasser is a cricketer, not a politician. If Tony Blair has not the backbone
to stop England playing in Zimbabwe then he should not expect sportsmen to do
his dirty work for him. Manfred Muench, England

It seems to be to be a very simple matter. The individual cricketers need to
decide whether, on balance, the regime in Zimbabwe is "good" or "bad".

If, like most fair-minded people, they conclude the latter then they should
decide what comes first, their selfish concern with playing a game, or making a
statement on behalf of the suffering and starving people of Zimbabwe.

To hide behind complexities, governments, ruling bodies, etc is
reprehensible. What ever happened to a sense of right and wrong and honour in
this country? Dave Lyons, England

Being a leader sometimes involves making these kinds of calls

Zeyn Adam,
Zimbabwe

Put cleanly cricketers play cricket, politician play politics. However, if
the politicians do not want to act in this matter, then what should be done? It
is clearly a moral question, which needs an individual like Nasser and may I add
Duncan Fletcher to weigh up the situation. Ask yourself these questions:

1) What would I want to happen if it were my family's farm which had been
appropriated illegitimately?

2) What would I want to happen, if I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt, through
an independent organisation like the UN that the government of Zimbabwe was
deliberately starving half of its population to death and in amongst that number
was your mother, father, wife and children?

3) What if I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt through an independent
organisation that the government of Zimbabwe was involved the suppression of
democratically held tenants of governance and expression?

4) Finally, if I knew beyond any doubt that this same Zimbabwe government is
not legitimate, meaning there is no basis to meeting and entertaining an
illegitimate patron of the Zimbabwe Cricket Board?

The answer to all these questions is based on your own moral judgement. Being
a leader sometimes involves making these kinds of calls. Zeyn Adam,
Zimbabwe

The Government should make the final decision on the matter and if they say
no then we shouldn't go. How can you make the England team make a decision, they
have been on tour All Winter in Australia. They should have been, told about
this earlier. Jonathan Buckley, Swadlincote, England

There surely can be no question of England playing in Zimbabwe; to
participate would only endorse Mugabe's dreadful regime. Sometimes we have to
have the moral courage to do what is right, however much it costs - to play is
just another form of appeasement. Ian Hume, Scotland

Of course England should travel. Sport and politics are separate
entities

David Dunbabinn,
UK

Now that the government has appointed Nasser Hussain as the country's moral
compass, do you think we can ask him for his point of view on Iraq? Does he
think we should impose sanctions against Pakistan and India for their
proliferation of nuclear weapons? Would he care to comment on the US's refusal
to sign the Kyoto accord?

I think this is a wonderful! Our government, which has give up all moral
responsibility, has appointed this decent, intelligent and sensitive man as the
country's voice of conscience. I only wish they'd take this to the logical
conclusion and give him the authority that goes with this responsibility. I'd
vote for Nasser before Tony Blair any day! Richard Smith, UK

Of course England should travel. Sport and politics are separate entities. If
it's OK for English football teams to play Israeli sides in European
competition, then its OK to play cricket in Zimbabwe. David Dunbabinn,
UK

Mugabe never played cricket and does not know the rules, but he is the
cricket patron in Zimbabwe. Was Chingoka not mixing politics with sport? Nasser
come and play the game with Mugabe. Tabeth Mushonga, Zimbabwe

Should Jesse Owens have boycotted the Berlin Olympics? No, he went and showed
up Hitler. They should go and play, but refuse to join in the ceremonies and
hand-shaking. They can warm-up while all that is going on. It's hypocritical for
the Government to expect the ECB to enforce their political opinions for them.
Richard Hobbs, UK

Yes Mugabe is a bad man, however if this government does not want his regime
to win a propaganda victory then they need to put their hands in their pockets
and find £10M. A drop in the ocean compared to the amount of money they are
desperate to spend killing innocents in Iraq. Why should the game we love suffer
to keep warmonger Blair and his cronies happy. Ralph, England

Why, why, why are cricket and rugby always the targets for the politicians to
use as scapegoats? If it were the England football team going, no-one would turn
a hair. Just like they didn't when Zimbabwe sent a team here to the Commonwealth
Games, where they came 22nd, picking up one gold and one silver medal.

If the politicians wish to make a point then it is up to them - but this lot
seem to lack any fibre. Of course, if the cricketers don't go and there is a
backlash of some sort, President Blair and his cronies will be holding their
hands up and saying "it's not our fault - we didn't tell them not to go!"
Barry, England

If they go, the England party, must make sure they completely boycott
any related ceremonial events that will provide Mugabe and his henchmen with any
favourable publicity

Robin, Scotland

Why should England boycott? the British government has not imposed any
sanctions or cut off ties with Zimbabwe, so why are they expecting the cricket
team to? it does not make any sense. Atif Siddiqui, England

Put political considerations aside for one moment and consider the safety of
our cricketers. There is nothing Mugabe would like better than a spontaneous
display of bottle throwing that targets the English team, thus humiliating the
country he most despises, and rants and raves against on a regular basis. I feel
sure that his plans for such a spontaneous display are well in hand in
preparation for the arrival of the English cricketers. Sue, UK

How can the government justify leaning on the ECB not to play in the world
cup in Zimbabwe but not propose or enforce any other sanctions against Mugabe?
England, morally, should not play in Zimbabwe under the present regime however,
the government stance is highly hypocritical. For this reason, my opinion is
that the ECB should proceed as intended. Darryl Ward, England

It's a bit hard to take all this debate so seriously - we ALL know the
cricketers shouldn't go. Everyone. It's just a question of who will be brave
enough to make the decision, and suffer the consequences - financial, political,
or simply in terms of publicity. Who's responsible? We ALL are - the public, the
ICC, the ECB, the Government, Nasser Hussain, the other players... Who's got the
(cricket) balls to tell the simple truth? At the moment, it seems like no-one
has... Paul Bernal, UK

Unless the cricketing nations in the World Cup jointly take an eleventh hour
stand to boycott games in Zimbabwe it seems inevitable that England must honour
their contractual commitment to play there. If they do go, the England party,
players and officials, must make sure they completely boycott any related
ceremonial or other direct contact events that will provide Mugabe and his
henchmen with any favourable publicity.

The government's stance on compensation is the correct one. Were they to pay
up on this one, how many claims would follow from other commercial or sporting
organisations in the period ahead. Robin, Scotland

Cricket is being used as an easy target. Blair is too concerned with his
popularity to risk losing support by banning companies from trading with
Zimbabwe, but he is happy to tell the cricketers they shouldn't. He doesn't even
have the bottle to make a decision, but throws the responsibility at someone
else for them to take the flack. Ian Parkin, England

Nasser, you have my every sympathy. I find it hard to believe that the
Government, ECB and ICB are all so weak-kneed, spineless, yellow-bellied and
pathetic that they have to defer the decision to you. In these circumstances I
support WHATEVER you decide because you've been put in an impossible position.
Good luck. Neil, UK

If Zimbabwe had reached the football World Cup Finals and been drawn
against England, would we have refused to play them?

Bulkwark, UK

Why should England boycott playing in Zimbabwe? isn't a major event like the
cricket World Cup supposed to bring people together? Let's just play the game in
Zimbabwe and just forget, for a few hours the trouble which is being caused. If
they boycott playing in Zimbabwe then when they are asked to play in England
they are going to say no and whose fault is that going to be? Ben
Norris, England

Before the politicians start having a go at a dozen guys hitting a ball
around a park perhaps they would like to consider the fact that 400 UK companies
still do business with Zimbabwe and UK investment there is more than £100m. That
is what I call supporting Mugabe's regime.

Cricket is the easy target when they just want to pay lip service to this big
morality thing. Mugabe is not going to stand or fall on a cricket match, it's
the state of the economy that will bring him down.

Britain is happy to trade with any number of dictatorships, ship arms to any
number of unstable regions and mine diamonds from the cheapest source. When the
major hypocrisies have been cleared up, then they can start fiddling about on
the periphery. Mark, Germany

Are we to assume that if Zimbabwe had reached the world cup finals and been
drawn against England we would have refused to play them ? Bulkwark,
UK

The government does not appear to realise that the money that is in question
is used to fund cricket from grassroots to the top level. The state of cricket
in England is already in a perilous state before depriving the game of much
needed money. If England were to boycott the game in Zimbabwe, not be
compensated by the government and then do well in the World Cup they should then
boycott any efforts by 10 Downing Street to cash in on this success.
Sarmad, UK

There would be no consistency in pulling out of Zimbabwe. After all, the
English football team will be playing Turkey in Turkey, who are responsible for
the suffering of 1000's of Kurds, English athletes will participate at Olympics
in China in 2008 and Israel remain a member of UEFA, and so the list goes on.

What I understand from this is that the death of tens of white farmers in
Zimbabwe is worse than the death of 1000's of Kurds, Tibetans and Palestinians.
The fact is, they are all equally terrible, so let's be consistent, either
boycott the majority of sporting events, or treat sport as something separate to
politics. James, Chester, UK

what about the thousands of supporters who will in Zimbabwe - or are
they not important is this whole event?

Andy, South
Africa

I'm a little confused on why there is such a big fuss on who should fork out
the compensation. Surely in all this war of words the supporters have been
forgotten - those that have saved up to follow and support their team through
the world cup. The amount that they will lose will surpass the amount being
debated here.

Also on this issue all I have heard regarding security and safety is of 16
players and their entourage, what about the thousands of supporters who will in
Zimbabwe - or are they not important is this whole event? Andy, South
Africa

Yes, Government should pay for Zimbabwe boycott. Jawad, Pakistan

If Nasser Hussain shakes Mugabe's hand it will be used as a political act by
Mugabe. It will bolster an evil regime. However, both parties are to blame. The
ECB knew about this problem a long time ago as well as the government. The
suggestion that cricket will go bankrupt because England miss one 1-day
international is laughable. If the game goes ahead shame on Nasser, any player
who goes, the ECB and the government. Jim M, UK

How can you not play cricket when UK banks and other business are operating
all over Zimbabwe? Tessa Jowell referred to "the deteriorating security
situation" - yet that has stayed the same, only the government's need to appear
"ethical" in its foreign policy to legitimise Iraq needs the matches to be
cancelled. The Government is happy to sell Hawk jets to Indonesia and still
trade in Zimbabwe - why deny people the chance to pay and watch cricket?
Joe , UK

At what price do we support the atrocities of Zimbabwe - £10 million is how
cheaply a nations suffering can be bought, but then it is only Zimbabwe, they
have no oil, little gold, few diamonds. Whilst Nasser fiddles with his bat,
Harare burns. Perhaps it is time to stand up and be counted. With the lack of
moral courage being shown today, England insults it's own past and heritage.
Andrew, U.K

With the lack of moral courage being shown today, England insults it's
own past and heritage

Andrew, U.K

Why there is even a question as to whether we should play in Zimbabwe
astounds me, Mugabe is a dictator and should not be further financed by England
cricketers! Can Blair not get off his fence for once and make a decision for
this country or will he have to phone the White House first! Alex,
England

Remember the original meeting between Wilson and Smith at GIB. The agreement
was yes you can go and we [the British Government] will pay you ex Pounds. All
that money has not been paid. So if England go. Mugabe could in theory hold our
cricketers hostage. Until such monies are paid. Mr. Ian Newton,
England

A humble message to Nasser Hussain. Let the politician's boycott whatever
regime they please but you don't have to Nasser because all the cricket players
(any nationality) are brothers. Go there and try to win the world cup!
Sunil Kuruneru, Hong Kong (China)

The Daily News reports that the Zimbabwe Cricket Union is limiting tickets
for the world cup to 2 per person.

The ZCU does not have an intelligent reason as to why they are doing this.
And we believe that you should get to the bottom of it. Some points for you to
consider:

Zimbabweans have limited fuel

Zimbabweans have lost huge amounts of productive time to queuing, so they
have limited time to allocate to tasks like buying tickets

In this regard, for a family of 7 or a group of 15 friends to get tickets to
the world cup they will either have to make several trips or gather many friends
together in order to fulfil this task

What happens to Zimbabweans in Marondera or Mutare who want to purchase
tickets - how many different trips, fuel permitting, will have to be made?

According to the Daily News the ICC have reserved 2000 tickets for their
stakeholders whoever they may be (perhaps government, police and army)

According to the ZCU huge numbers of tickets have been reserved for
corporate sponsors and their stakeholders

Just who exactly is benefiting from these 6 world cup matches in
Zimbabwe?

We need more transparency regarding the sale and the allocation of
tickets.

Also the Zimbabwe Cricket Union and the ICC continually reiterate that
ordinary Zimbabweans are going to benefit from the world cup cricket in Zimbabwe
YET

they have imposed these unrealistic ticket limitations

will the ZCU set up ticket selling structures in high density areas so that
Zimbabweans of other classes and economic brackets have an easier time of
purchasing tickets (the Harare Sports Club is not the most central of places)

areas like Chitungwiza should definitely have a satellite ZCU world cup
ticket sales venue

The points that we raise further illustrate that the ZCU is entirely
self-serving in their role as potential host of world cup cricket in
Zimbabwe.

Organised Resistance

Reuters

Protesters delay Zimbabwe decision

By John
Mehaffey LONDON (Reuters) - Placard-wielding protesters have invaded a
newsconference at Lord's called to announce whether England would fulfil
theircricket World Cup fixture in Zimbabwe despite government
opposition.

The incident
delayed the conference for 90 minutes until 2.30 pm andled to a change of
venue within the ground. The England and Wales CricketBoard (ECB) are
expected to announce whether they will play Zimbabwe onFebruary
13.

The protesters were led by activist Peter Tatchell, who has
twicetried to perform a citizen's arrest on Zimbabwe President Robert
Mugabe.

"We are not going to sit idly by while people are
starving," Tatchellsaid, comparing the proposed trip to Britain's competing
at the 1936 BerlinOlympics which Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler used to glorify
his politicalbeliefs.

"They just barged straight through," a
Lord's official said, addingpunches were exchanged as the protesters pushed
into the ground behind atelevision crew. They were persuaded to leave the
conference venue by twopolice officers after 25 minutes.

Five
days ago Culture, Sport and Media Secretary Tessa Jowell told theECB that
the government opposed the match against Zimbabwe because ofsecurity
concerns and what she called the appalling human rights record ofMugabe's
government.

The ECB has said it is not qualified to make political
judgements,adding it would face heavy fines if it pulled out of the contract
to playthe game.

Australia, Pakistan, India, Namibia and the
Netherlands are alsoscheduled to play in Zimbabwe. The World Cup, which will
be staged in SouthAfrica, Zimbabwe and Kenya, opens in Cape Town on February
8.

Escorted outside the conference room, Tatchell
complained he had beenpunched while another protester, Zimbabwean Alan
Wilkinson, said a cut tohis head had been caused by a security guard
wielding a mobile phone.

Zimbabwe capital's mayor defiant despite arrestThe
mayor of Zimbabwe's capital city, Harare, has vowed he will not be cowedfrom
performing his duties by his weekend arrest by police, which he saidwas
unwarranted.

Elias Mudzuri, who belongs to the opposition Movement for
Democratic Change(MDC), and 21 councillors and senior municipal workers were
arrested onSaturday by police who said they had held a political meeting
withoutauthorisation.

Under the country's new security law, the
Public Order and Security Act(POSA), public meetings need to be cleared by
police, but Mr Mudzuri sayshis meeting was a civic, not political gathering
and was defiant that hewill not be intimidated.

"Because I was
arrested, it does not mean that I will stop meeting thepeople," he told a
news conference.

He claimed he was warned by a security agent at the
police station where hewas held throughout the weekend not to hold any other
of his civic meetingswithout police permission.

"I was called into a
room and I was told I am too small and can getcrushed," he said.

But
he vowed he would continue to hold his consultative meetings.

Mr Mudziri
said the one at which he was arrested had not been the first andthat he has
so far held 19 meetings with residents of the capital.

"As long as the
electorate is behind me, I will work for them," Mr Mudzirisaid.

"I am
committed to serve the residents of Harare, I am willing to work withany
state machinery which want to serve the residents of Harare," he said.

Mr
Mudzuri complained about the conditions under which he and his
colleagueswere arrested and detained at Harare central police
cells.

"My arrest was unwarranted because I was literally manhandled by
thepolice," he said, adding he was pushed and shoved and his shirt was
torn.

He said he was bundled into a one cell along with 13 others with
access toonly one toilet and very little food for the two days.

"The
conditions we were detained in were terrible," he said.

Mr Mudzuri was
freed Monday without charge.

He had been holding a meeting on Saturday
concerning several problemsdogging the city, including shortages of
water.

Since being elected into office nine months ago, Mr Mudzuri said
he had beenunder constant pressure from central government.

He
alleges he is always being harassed by Local Government Minister
IgnatiusChombo.

"They need to leave me alone to do my work," he
said.

Mr Mudzuri is one of the four opposition mayors serving four cities
andtowns in the country.

The government is soon to appoint governors
to oversee affairs in two of thefour cities and towns.

"What we are
getting to is a scenario where our democratic space is beingclosed," he
said.

OHANNESBURG, Jan. 13 - Representatives of
Zimbabwe's government and theleading opposition party acknowledged today
that they had held informaldiscussions last month about a possible
power-sharing deal that wouldrequire President Robert Mugabe to resign. But
both sides denied a newspaperreport that they had formally negotiated such
an agreement.

Vice President Joseph Msika and officials from the
opposition said they hadnot agreed on Mr. Mugabe's retirement, as was first
reported in The SundayMirror of Zimbabwe. The newspaper said officials had
agreed to create aninterim government and to hold parliamentary and
presidential elections in2005, a year ahead of schedule.

"There's no
power-sharing agreement at all," Mr. Msika said in a telephoneinterview from
Zimbabwe.

Despite the denials of formal talks, both sides said today that
quiet,unofficial discussions about such a plan had already taken
place.

William Bango, a spokesman for the opposition, said emissaries
from Mr.Mugabe's governing party had approached the opposition in December
todiscuss a power-sharing deal. A government negotiator said the two sides
hadmet several times.

"There have been people, purporting to be
emissaries, asking about the wayforward," said Mr. Bango, referring to
meetings between governmentrepresentatives and Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader
of the opposition. "But wehave never had any formal response."

The
government negotiator said the contacts were made with Mr. Mugabe'sapproval
and with the help of the British. He said officials believed thatif Mr.
Tsvangirai were included in the government, Western nations mightrestore
badly needed foreign aid and end penalties.

The first discussions of a
government of national unity came last year afterthe hotly contested
presidential election. Western countries, which hadalready cut off most aid
to Zimbabwe, said the election had been rigged.African leaders had pushed
the political rivals to find a way to governtogether.

Those talks
collapsed after the opposition party, the Movement forDemocratic Change,
challenged Mr. Mugabe's victory in court. Now it seemsthat the dire economic
and political crisis in Zimbabwe has pushed thepolitical rivals to start
talking again.

The combination of severe drought and a chaotic land
reform program has leftabout six million people - roughly half the
population - in need ofemergency food aid. Inflation has soared to 175
percent, the value of thelocal currency has plummeted and poverty is
deepening.

Meanwhile, the government has continued attacks on the
opposition.

In some instances, government-backed militants have denied
food toopposition supporters. Journalists and opposition supporters have
beenrepeatedly arrested for holding public meetings, which are forbidden
withoutapproval from the police. On Saturday, the mayor of Harare, the
capital, wasarrested for talking to constituents without
approval.

The opposition has struggled to find a strategy in the face of
suchharassment and violence. Disillusioned supporters have ignored several
callsfor general strikes intended to demonstrate public outrage with
thegovernment.

A power-sharing deal would not be an easy sell to
hard-liners on eitherside, which may be why the opposition and government
are playing down theirinformal talks. Government officials insist publicly
that Mr. Mugabe mustcomplete his full term. Some opposition supporters say a
national unitygovernment would only legitimize Mr. Mugabe's unpopular
administration. Itis uncertain whether a power-sharing plan, if formalized,
would have widesupport.

But it seems clear that leaders in government
and in the opposition want tofind a way to break the deadlock.

Under
the proposed agreement, The Sunday Mirror reported, Mr. Mugabe
wouldrelinquish the presidency and hand power to his favored successor,
EmmersonMnangagwa, the speaker of Parliament.

"Sources privy to the
highly confidential plan say the move has beenprecipitated by the mutual
realization among influential Zimbabwean andBritish officials, with the
mediation of the South African government," thenewspaper said, "that they
have lost dismally from their current diplomaticstand-off, and that a
peaceful settlement, which would lead to anormalization of relations would
benefit the two countries."

The Sunday Mirror is published by Ibbo
Mandaza, a businessman and a formerofficial, who still has close ties to Mr.
Mugabe's government.

ZIMBABWE'S opposition was yesterday split over plans
to give embattledPresident Robert Mugabe a dignified exit after 23 years in
power.

Movement for Democratic Change leader Morgan Tsvangirai
on Sundaynight backed the deal, under which a power-sharing government would
takeover when Mugabe resigned.

But yesterday a senior MDC
official said all talks with the rulingZanu-PF party were off, and that it
had no part in the reported plans.

"No further such negotiations
can ever take place," without the MDCleadership's
approval,

Information Secretary Paul Nyathi said. The deal
was said to have beenoffered in Mugabe's absence by two of Zanu's most
powerful figures:Parliament speaker Emmerson Mnangagwa and General Vitalis
Zvinavashe, thearmed forces chief of staff.

Mugabe was
returning home yesterday after a two-week holiday inSoutheast Asia. He has
not commented on the proposal.

Government officials said the offer
was a bid to help Zimbabwe winback international legitimacy and renewed aid
and investment during a periodof transitional rule. Any power-sharing
government would be confronted withan economic meltdown that has sent
inflation soaring, caused a massive fuelshortage and left at least half the
population on the brink of starvation.

Over the past three years,
Mugabe's government has seized most of thenation's thousands of white-owned
commercial farms. Officials call it ajustified struggle by landless blacks
to make amends for the colonial erathat left 4,000 whites with one-third of
the farm land.

Mugabe, who led the nation to independence in 1980,
won a new six-yearterm in elections last March that independent observers
said were deeplyflawed.

The MDC, along with Britain, the EU and
the US, have refused torecognise the results, saying the vote was rigged and
had been marred byviolence and intimidation. The farm disruptions and poor
rains have led tothe food crisis and coupled with political chaos and the
government'sincreasing isolation, have led to acute shortages of hard
currency andessential imports.

Tsvangirai said he had not
received "categoric assurances" from thefull Zanu leadership that Mugabe
would go.

"I can only go as far as to say as far as Mnangagwa and
Zvinavashewere concerned, it's part of the deal," he said. "It is obvious
Mugabe hasbecome a liability to his party and the nation as a
whole."

Zimbabwe President
Robert Mugabe's chief spin doctor, Information MinisterJonathan Moyo, has
launched a blistering attack on South Africans,describing them as filthy,
reckless and uncouth - and unfit to lead theAfrican renaissance.

The
furious Moyo was responding to a report in the Sunday Times whichexposed his
spending spree in South Africa, while ordinary Zimbabweans hadto go without
basic commodities over the Christmas holidays.

The story also confirmed
the view among many Zimbabweans that toppoliticians were not affected by the
hardships besetting the country andwere not in any hurry to lift the country
out of its crisis as they couldafford to make the long trips to South Africa
to buy groceries.

Mugabe's groceries are reportedly purchased in London
and freighted intoZimbabwe on an Air Zimbabwe flight every month.

It
is common knowledge that several ministers and their relatives
frequentlydrive to South Africa to buy commodities in short supply in
Zimbabwe.

But Moyo said the Sunday Times report had clearly shown that
South Africawas not a worthy holiday destination where one could go with
one's familyand enjoy the kind of privacy that anybody else could expect in
a civilisedcountry.

"I have always had a nagging feeling that for all
their propensity forliberal values and civilised norms, these people (South
Africans) are dirty.

"In fact they are filthy and recklessly uncouth. Now
the evidence is therefor any decent person to see," Moyo said in a statement
published by thestate-owned Herald newspaper.

"If these people, in
the name of South Africa, believe they can lead anAfrican renaissance, then
God help them because they are joking. Theirbarbarism will never take root
or find expression in Africa."

Moyo said that South Africans wanting a
fight with him would get more thanthey had bargained for.

He said the
people behind the report stood for debauchery and should not beallowed to be
the torchbearers for Africa when what they did wasunacceptable for African
journalism and the civilised world. The editor ofthe Sunday Times is former
Star deputy editor, Mathatha Tsedu.

Moyo accused the Sunday Times of
staking him out, ransacking his hotel roomand stealing a computer disk with
material on which he was working, as wellas his wife's
cellphone.

Like its British counterparts, the South African press was
undemocratic,uncivilised and unfair, Moyo charged.

"Can you imagine
people ransacking your baggage as you prepare it, takingpictures without
your knowledge and lyingthrough their teeth about its contents, claiming you
are carrying food andno clothes and that you have been there for two
weeks?"

The Herald said it believed that many people, some of them linked
to Britishintelligence, were involved in the "plot" which resulted in them
puttingtogether the report and the pictures in the Sunday Times. - Foreign
Service

a.. This article was originally published on page 1 of
The Cape Times on14 January 2003

UNITED NATIONS, Jan. 14 - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan
told Zimbabweanson Monday to work with each other and the world community
and combat thecountry's impending famine and AIDS pandemic, regardless of
who was toblame. He singled out the southern African nation at a
news conference,saying that the threat of famine on the African continent
was particularlyacute in Zimbabwe, a country which used to be the region's
breadbasket. ''This tragic situation is caused partly by the forces of
nature andpartly by mismanagement,'' Annan said. ''We could debate
endlessly which of them made the greatercontribution. But the challenge now
is for all Zimbabweans to work together,and with each other, and with the
international community, to find solutionsbefore it is too late,'' he
said. The economy is in its fourth year of recession, and critics say
thegovernment's land seizure campaign has worsened food shortages,
threatening7 million Zimbabweans with starvation. Annan said he
had seen media reports of plans to ease PresidentRobert Mugabe from power
but said he could not judge their accuracy becausethe United Nations was not
involved. On Tuesday, Mugabe dismissed such reports but senior
Africandiplomats in neighboring Zambia said they believed
behind-the-sceneinitiatives were underway. The 78-year-old Mugabe,
who has ruled since 1980, faces internationalisolation over his seizure of
white-owned farm land for redistribution tolandless blacks, a controversial
election victory last March and Zimbabwe'shuman rights record. He
has accused Britain of spearheading an international campaignagainst
him.

KUALA LUMPUR -
Malaysia's government remained tightlipped today over reportsthat it had
offered asylum to Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe if herelinquished
power.

"There is no statement," a foreign ministry official
said.

Reports from the Zimbabwean capital Harare over the weekend
suggested thatsenior members of the ruling party and the opposition were
collaborating ona plan under which Mugabe would stand down for a government
of nationalunity.

He would be offered immunity from prosecution for
human rights abuses andthe chance to go into exile, and the Malaysian
government had tentativelyagreed to offer him asylum, the reports
said.

Mugabe and Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad have been
friends foryears, both having come to power more than 20 years
ago.

They share a love of anti-Western rhetoric in defence of the
developingworld, but while Mahathir has steered his country from the
economicbackwaters to the mainstream of Asian development, Zimbabwe's
economy is inthe worst crisis of its history.

Mahathir has declared
his intention of stepping down as prime minister inOctober this year, while
Mugabe won re-election as president last year in apoll widely regarded as
fraudulent.

Zimbabwe's ruling party has dismissed the reports of Mugabe's
planned exileas "wishful thinking and mischief".

HARARE, Jan. 14 - Zimbabwe police said on Tuesday they
had uncovered plansby the main opposition Movement for Democratic Change to
stage violentprotests aimed at wrecking World Cup Cricket matches in the
country. But the MDC dismissed the charge, saying President Robert
Mugabe'sgovernment was looking for another excuse to clamp down on
oppositionleaders and activists. ''We are aware of plans by some
political parties, in this case theMDC, to organise violent political
demonstrations around the time of theCricket Cup tournament in an attempt to
create a security problem and toforce those matches scheduled to be played
here to be moved,'' a policespokesman said. ''We want to warn the
MDC against carrying out these plans...and wewant to assure all concerned
that the Zimbabwe Republic Police will notallow a break-up of law and order
or anyone to threaten peace andsecurity,'' he said in remarks broadcast by
the Zimbabwe BroadcastingCorporation. MDC spokesman Paul
Themba-Nyathi said the police warning wasunwarranted and the opposition
movement had no plans for any streetprotests. ''This government is
looking for every excuse, and creating excuseswhere it doesn't find them, to
suppress the opposition, to lock up itsleaders and its activists,'' he told
Reuters. The England and Wales Cricket Board said on Tuesday the
England teamwould play its February 13 match against Zimbabwe, rejecting
governmentpressure to boycott the match in protest at Mugabe's policies and
Zimbabwe'shuman rights record. The World Cup organisers welcomed
the board's decision and said ithoped Australia would follow suit.

Having been born in and lived in the "Rhodesias" I feel a great sadness about
what is happening in the region. It is a humanitarian issue - and goes beyond
simple politics.

This is why the English cricket team should not be persuaded by any political
pressures, but simply by their own individual consciences. To lend any kind of
international credibility to Zimbabwe's state machinery is immoral and
unethical.

Each cricketer should base his decision to play there not on what others may
or may not believe to be correct, but on how he feels his decision will reflect
on his own moral and ethical standards. Grahame Palmer, Britain

Ali USA says "Let sanctions be sanctions". There are no sanctions! The UK
still trade with Zimbabwe, so why should the cricket team be a special case? The
ICC should never have let the matches be played there, but England making a
stand now will do nothing. Rob, UK

The ECB decision is the right one. It has nothing whatsoever to do with
politics. Why on earth should professional sportsmen be asked to sacrifice
personal income and sporting achievement to satisfy a UK government without the
backbone to impose trading sanctions on the corrupt Zimbabwe regime or to expel
them from the Commonwealth? I hope Blair and Hain feel utterly embarrassed
tonight. James Scott, UK

And if Iraq played cricket? How wayward and dictatorial does the government
of a country have to be before we stop playing the virtuous game of cricket
there? Will, Canada

The government have asked the cricketers to make a stand they are not
prepared to make themselves

Sean Donnellan,
London

I don't see how the British government or the British people can object to
England playing cricket in Zimbabwe. Do we really expect that the ECB should
take the lead against Zimbabwe, when the government refuses to?

Political and economic sanctions should be introduced before we can ask our
cricket team to boycott the match, especially if no financial compensation is on
offer. Luke, UK

I definitely think that the fans should stay away. The leadership shown not
only by the ECB but also Westminster is nothing short of gutless and pathetic.

I think that individual players also need to look at themselves and maybe
take a stand individually and collectively to stay away from Zimbabwe. Hope that
the members of the ECB will sleep well on this cop out!!! Nigel
Phillips, Wales

I initially believed that the cricket team should not play in Zimbabwe.
However, the ECB have highlighted a lack in consistency in government policy
towards the regime.

It is up to the government to enforce a more uniform trade/sporting sanctions
policy if that's what they want.

OK go and play, it might draw the world's attention back to how badly Mugabe
is treating his people. Dave Hansen, England

I feel that the comments (unreported here) made by the ECB in the full
eight-minute statement raise some important issues.

The ECB were in the unique position of being asked to not play these matches,
and leave themselves liable for unlimited financial damages.

There are 300 UK companies operating in Zimbabwe and 2 British Airways
flights per week.

There are no political, financial or economic sanctions indicating Zimbabwe's
position in the world, and they are still a full member of the Commonwealth
(their sportsmen and women were represented last year in Manchester in the
Commonwealth Games).

The government have asked the cricketers to make a stand they are not
prepared to make themselves. It may not be the right decision, but it was the
only one they could make.

If the government ask a company to break a contract for the moral stance of
the nation, they should be responsible for financing this from the public purse.

If Nasser Hussain takes a lead himself by refusing to play in
Zimbabwe, he will have shown Tony Blair a thing or two about leadership

John, UK

The government cannot ask individuals to make a stance they will not back, or
financially support, so the game must go ahead.

The only hope for this government is that the ICC thinks it's too dangerous,
and moves the games on the basis of safety. Sean Donnellan, London, UK

Fans should certainly boycott the match. The ECB were put in a very difficult
position by a government that appears to be incapable of taking a real lead on
any issue.

Nevertheless, the ECB could still have had the moral courage to make the
decision themselves. Now it's left to the players, who cannot be blamed if they
put their own livelihood first, although they too should be capable of taking a
moral stand.

If Nasser Hussain takes a lead himself by refusing to play in Zimbabwe, he
will have shown Tony Blair a thing or two about leadership. John, UK

How should the fans react? By a complete and unanimous absence! If the board
hasn't got any backbone but only sees things in pounds and pence, at least the
fans can register their disapproval. Dave, UK

The gold award for hypocrisy in this fiasco must go to Mike Gatting. He
suggests that the England cricket team should boycott the World Cup.

This from the man who led two rebel tours to apartheid-stricken South Africa.
Oh, sorry it was for money. Okay, that's alright then. Pah! Rod,
England

This is a different type of issue to people who are not cricket fans. It is
easier to answer no when the sport means nothing to you.

Cricket needs exposure and financial backing so it reaches the grass roots in
as many countries as possible. If the UK government has no sanctions against
Zimbabwe then we must play. The MPs are telling the cricket team in all the
papers not to go but they do not want the costs that go with cancellation.

The ECB have taken the correct decision and I back them all the way. They are
making decisions not just for the next game but the future of cricket.
Brian, England

If the ECB can't make a stand then it is down to the fans to make a
point

Ben Thwaites,
England

Excellent decision. Glad the authorities have clarified that politics and
sport are totally different streams and I'm glad it wasn't mixed. Will be very
pleased if even the people who were against this decision to come forward and
back it and enjoy the game. Nax, UK

I am getting increasingly desperate with the lack of strongly held political
opinions the UK government has. The government has had a moral obligation for
many years to lead the demand for action against the Mugabe regime.

Instead, the government have taken the opportunity to pretend they are being
firm over the murder and mutilation taking place in Zimbabwe but at the same
time putting the onus of action on a sporting agency.

The government should be ashamed that they have abdicated their
responsibility and tried to leave the blame with the cricket board. When will
principles return to politics? Rob , England

I wrote into this site some time ago on this issue, to state that I strongly
objected to the England cricket team going to Zimbabwe for the obvious reason
that the situation in that country is abhorrent.

However, having recently spoken to relatives who live there and been given
the view on the ground, I get the impression that no matter what happened,
Mugabe would be able to make political capital out of it.

So, for the morale of the people, we should honour our obligation to play,
but should be seen to refute any attempts by the Zim government to use us for
their political benefit. Chris B, UK

The fans should stay away from the game. If the ECB can't make a stand then
it is down to the fans to make a point. I still have no idea, why when England
players were able to lead a rebel tour to South Africa in the 80s, the
individual players are not able to rebel and stay away from the tournament.
Ben Thwaites, England

Neither the England team nor the fans should be making the trip to Zimbabwe.
Where has everyone's sense of morality gone? I am appalled at the comments of
Mike Gatting saying one match won't make a difference!

I guess the tortures and political murders going on less than a mile away
don't make a difference. And imagine the Barmy Army emerging merry from the
gates of Harare Sports Club after a predictable victory only to be confronted by
Mugabe's guards outside his house across the road.

Has nobody realised England will be playing and supporting cricket in a
cricket ground only a few yards from the house of one of the most brutal leaders
of this century? Michael, Zimbabwe

As we all know English cricket is not what it should be, and a loss of £11m
would shatter the last five years of work in grass roots development.

We all want our national team to be better, and this costs money. Had the
government footed the bill I think the ECB would have jumped at the chance of a
boycott. But without that compensation they cannot, as their first priority is
the continued development of cricket.

Why are people not pouring pressure on the government to do something about
the Zimbabwe problems? It should not be down to a team of sportsmen to make such
a political statement.

I think they are quite right to play, particularly as the government
will not compensate them if they don't

Paul Tomlinson,
UK

I hope that all the team go there with their morals intact, they have nothing
to be ashamed of, they are doing this for the love of their sport and their
nation. I hope they do us proud. Craig, UK

If the government wanted England to not play in Zimbabwe, they should have
let their feelings known in November when England were asked by the ICC to play
in Zimbabwe, not leave it until a month before the match.

I think they are quite right to play, particularly as the government will not
compensate them if they do not play. Paul Tomlinson, UK

It's not fair from the government to put such pressure on a non-political
organisation. If the government is so worried about Zimbabwe's human rights
record then why doesn't it impose economic sanctions on them? Sport and Politics
should never mix. Amin Ibrar, England

It's an absolute disgrace. Putting forward the sport v politics argument is a
smokescreen and a cop out. The cricketing authorities have shown themselves to
be morally bankrupt. Al, UK

Now that they have decided to go, I hope Nasser Hussain and the players have
the guts to refuse to shake hands with the Zimbabwean ministers, including
Mugabe. I would even suggest that they turn their backs on them in protest.
Howard Balkind, England

A true kick in the teeth to the £6m people Mugabe is starving in his own
country. The only thing more pathetic than the ECB is the stance of the British
government. No doubt when things go wrong it will be the UK taxpayer who'll have
to sort the mess out. Chris, UK

Shame on them - I certainly won't be supporting England in the cricket
any more

Karen, UK

I am appalled, disgusted even. I was born and lived in Zimbabwe for 27 years
so I know what I am talking about. This whole issue boils down to one thing and
one thing only - money.

The ECB are only interested in the money deals. This has absolutely nothing
to do with sport. England's cricket team isn't up to much anyway. It will be a
huge waste of time them even being there. Syd Buxton, UK

How typical that once again this comes down to money and to hell with the
horrors that are occurring against humanity. The ECB talk about sport being
singled out but surely this is an area that can highlight the tragedies
occurring in Zimbabwe to a bigger audience than the government.

Shame on them - I certainly won't be supporting England in the cricket any
more. Karen, UK

I am ashamed to be English, surely the moral issues raised here are more
important than money! Daniel Dodds, England

All parties have been forced into corners over this matter and, in truth,
everybody (except Robert Mugabe) is right and everybody (especially Mugabe) is
wrong.

There should be a boycott of Zimbabwe by England's cricketers and those of
the other countries due to play there. Nevertheless, English cricket should not
have to suffer - either financially or in terms of World Cup group points.

However, I fully understand the British government's position. Until they
implement a boycott of Zimbabwe and institute trade sanctions, they cannot order
anybody not to go there.

The only possible reason the sanctions are not in place is because it would
exacerbate the situation, which is good enough for me. The government recommends
that Britons do not visit the country but there is no embargo and there are
still flights to Harare.

No way should we visit a country that has such a man in power

Robert Walpole, England

Until the embargo is in place and/or flights are withdrawn, it is up to
individuals' consciences.

Robert Mugabe is evil, his dictatorship is wrong, and he should be stopped.
But it is not for England's cricketers (or any nation's) to take the lead in
this and simply refuse to play in that country because there will be major
repercussions for world cricket.

I just hope that everybody who goes to the games, players and fans, are safe.
This is not a certainty and for that reason, the whole Zimbabwe section of
fixtures should be moved out of the country. Joe

While I feel sorry for Nasser and the boys after the way the government and
the ECB have behaved, I nevertheless feel that Nasser and the boys are still
grown-ups who should have their own problems with playing in Zimbabwe.

I would like to think that the players have enough moral fibre as human
beings to know that playing in Zimbabwe is wrong and therefore refuse to play.
Tim, England

Why were Zimbabwe chosen to co-host the tournament in the first place? As
much as everybody is horrified by Mugabe's regime, England must go.

Whoever made the point that other businesses are still active in the country
and 'why single out cricket' is correct. Let's go in, win the game and get out.
Haven't Nasser's boys had enough this winter without being vilified for
something that is effectively beyond their control.

They are cricketers, I'm a cricket fan and I want to see Hussain lifting that
World Cup at the end of it. Toby, UK

Zimbabwe is a country in the grip of a harsh dictator, there is no doubting
that. However, until there is a complete boycott of all relations with Zimbabwe,
including diplomatic, there is no way the government can expect our cricketers
to boycott these matches.

Indeed it will be the ordinary Zimbabweans who suffer as they will be denied
the opportunity to watch the world's best cricket teams compete in their
country.

I firmly believe that the ICC was wrong in scheduling games in Zimbabwe given
the current political climate. A Griffin, UK

No way should we visit a country that has such a man in power, the cricketers
should use the time to coach our younger players instead. Christopher
John Low, England

If the British Government will not take any action to isolate or boycott
Zimbabwe, the England cricket team should play there. Robert Walpole,
England

The ICC made a big mistake in allowing the World Cup to take place in
Zimbabwe

Rasik Naik, USA

I reckon Nasser's men should play in Zimbabwe because if we pull out they may
not want to come over in the summer. Gareth, Wales

I think it is abhorrent that any team plays in Zimbabwe. The situation in
Zimbabwe is even worse than the South African regime that was boycotted for
years. But money talks and the money men will triumph over morals I feel.
Richard Johnson, England

The government obviously feel that the financial consequences of imposing a
ban are too high. Therefore they have made a decision on this matter. It is a
cricketer¿s job to play cricket and not make political decisions. Without any
prevention from the government, they should play to win and good luck to
them.Chris, UK

I am a Zimbabwean who left that country eight months ago and I would like to
say that it is too late for any team pull out now. I think the ICC made a big
mistake in allowing the World Cup to take place in Zimbabwe. With the petrol
crisis worsening and food shortages, it may cause riots.

Will the England commentators be allowed to cover the England game? I doubt
it. Unfortunately the matches will have to take place with some matches having
an empty ground. Rasik Naik, USA

Mugabe has made it known that Britain is an enemy of his. Would you step foot
or send your children to ones house who has called you an enemy? Let sanctions
be sanctions. I say no cricket in Zimbabwe. Ali, USA

The England players should refuse to shake hands and take part in
photo-calls. This will deny Mugabe the publicity he desires. But it is not the
place of the British Government to tell the English cricket team who they can
and cannot play, especially when to pull out would incur heavy costs which the
government would not help to pay. Robert, England

Our cricket team is not good enough to forfeit games and the points,
we must aim to win has many games has we can

Robert, UK

When Neville Chamberlain was Prime Minister in the 1930s, the England
football team played Germany in Germany and were told to give the Nazi salute as
the German anthem was played, which they did. If the British cricket team plays
in Zimbabwe, we will have reached a similar low. Richard, Brit in USA

I think it would be a better idea to stay back in England rather than losing
to Zimbabwe. I don't think England cricket fans fancy watching England losing to
Zimbabwe. So stay back and cover it up with some political scenario.
Ravindra Perera, Sri Lanka

Since the government refuses to cover the ECB then the ECB should go. However
the national team should not do anything that will promote the Mugabe
government, this includes shaking hands with any government minister. Our
cricket team is not good enough to forfeit games and the points, we must aim to
win has many games has we can. Robert, UK

To play or not play in Zimbabwe is a question for the ICC. They must evaluate
the safety and logistical issues that relate to a country with no fuel, severe
shortages of basic foodstuffs and a political climate that is very hostile to
the countries of two of the teams playing in Harare.

The ICC must decide if playing the Cricket World Cup in Harare in 2003 is
beneficial for the game and that the safety and wellbeing of the players and
supporters is assured.

If the ICC say "play" then Nasser and his team should play. Remember those
who play and support cricket in Zimbabwe are generally not those who support
Mugabe. Craig Henderson, New Zealand

If Hussain is the captain and encourages his team to pull out, this is a
political act, not a sportsman's act. He is picked to play cricket. If he wants
to be political, then he must resign and take up politics. William
Jones, England

The government should be bold and stop the team playing in
Zimbabwe

Jim, England ex
Zimbabwe

Nasser Hussain accuses politicians and ECB executives of 'faffing about'.
Maybe they are, but to him this should be irrelevant. If he has a moral
conscience, and can display his own free will, then he should not go, because he
will be at risk of making an innocent but serious contribution to Mugabe's
propaganda activities. It is an invalid argument to justify going by saying that
many other British businesses operate in Zimbabwe. The fact that they are
morally bankrupt does not mean more should follow their example. Rob,
UK

The government should be bold and stop the team playing in Zimbabwe. They
should be ready to compensate ECB for any loss, after all it was the government
which dithered until the last minute.

It is no good passing the buck to the ECB who in turn are trying to pass it
on to the players. It is just not cricket ! Rajan, UK

Either way I hope that whether the teams do play there or not, Zimbabwe
deserves the greatest press coverage possible to show the rest of the word what
a bleak situation this once prosperous country is in. Jim, England ex
Zimbabwe

The English cricket team is representing the country of England. The
political leadership of England has decided that Mugabe's government is not
doing anything untoward, otherwise they would have imposed economic and
political sanctions, wouldn't they? If the government hasn't boycotted trade
with Zimbabwe, why should they expect the cricket team to boycott cricket there?
Scott Montgomery, Australia

Put cleanly cricketers play cricket, politician play politics

Zeyn Adam, Zimbabwe

This is not a dictatorship and the government has given clear advice. The
England cricketers are adults and should stop going on about being naive when it
comes to politics.

They have a duty to make up their own minds and it's a simple moral choice.
They should not go and they should not fudge the issue and try to make us, the
taxpayer, foot the bill. Cricket is just sport. Vernon Moyse, UK

Nasser is a cricketer, not a politician. If Tony Blair has not the backbone
to stop England playing in Zimbabwe then he should not expect sportsmen to do
his dirty work for him. Manfred Muench, England

It seems to be to be a very simple matter. The individual cricketers need to
decide whether, on balance, the regime in Zimbabwe is "good" or "bad".

If, like most fair-minded people, they conclude the latter then they should
decide what comes first, their selfish concern with playing a game, or making a
statement on behalf of the suffering and starving people of Zimbabwe.

To hide behind complexities, governments, ruling bodies, etc is
reprehensible. What ever happened to a sense of right and wrong and honour in
this country? Dave Lyons, England

Being a leader sometimes involves making these kinds of calls

Zeyn Adam,
Zimbabwe

Put cleanly cricketers play cricket, politician play politics. However, if
the politicians do not want to act in this matter, then what should be done? It
is clearly a moral question, which needs an individual like Nasser and may I add
Duncan Fletcher to weigh up the situation. Ask yourself these questions:

1) What would I want to happen if it were my family's farm which had been
appropriated illegitimately?

2) What would I want to happen, if I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt, through
an independent organisation like the UN that the government of Zimbabwe was
deliberately starving half of its population to death and in amongst that number
was your mother, father, wife and children?

3) What if I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt through an independent
organisation that the government of Zimbabwe was involved the suppression of
democratically held tenants of governance and expression?

4) Finally, if I knew beyond any doubt that this same Zimbabwe government is
not legitimate, meaning there is no basis to meeting and entertaining an
illegitimate patron of the Zimbabwe Cricket Board?

The answer to all these questions is based on your own moral judgement. Being
a leader sometimes involves making these kinds of calls. Zeyn Adam,
Zimbabwe

The Government should make the final decision on the matter and if they say
no then we shouldn't go. How can you make the England team make a decision, they
have been on tour All Winter in Australia. They should have been, told about
this earlier. Jonathan Buckley, Swadlincote, England

There surely can be no question of England playing in Zimbabwe; to
participate would only endorse Mugabe's dreadful regime. Sometimes we have to
have the moral courage to do what is right, however much it costs - to play is
just another form of appeasement. Ian Hume, Scotland

Of course England should travel. Sport and politics are separate
entities

David Dunbabinn,
UK

Now that the government has appointed Nasser Hussain as the country's moral
compass, do you think we can ask him for his point of view on Iraq? Does he
think we should impose sanctions against Pakistan and India for their
proliferation of nuclear weapons? Would he care to comment on the US's refusal
to sign the Kyoto accord?

I think this is a wonderful! Our government, which has give up all moral
responsibility, has appointed this decent, intelligent and sensitive man as the
country's voice of conscience. I only wish they'd take this to the logical
conclusion and give him the authority that goes with this responsibility. I'd
vote for Nasser before Tony Blair any day! Richard Smith, UK

Of course England should travel. Sport and politics are separate entities. If
it's OK for English football teams to play Israeli sides in European
competition, then its OK to play cricket in Zimbabwe. David Dunbabinn,
UK

Mugabe never played cricket and does not know the rules, but he is the
cricket patron in Zimbabwe. Was Chingoka not mixing politics with sport? Nasser
come and play the game with Mugabe. Tabeth Mushonga, Zimbabwe

Should Jesse Owens have boycotted the Berlin Olympics? No, he went and showed
up Hitler. They should go and play, but refuse to join in the ceremonies and
hand-shaking. They can warm-up while all that is going on. It's hypocritical for
the Government to expect the ECB to enforce their political opinions for them.
Richard Hobbs, UK

Yes Mugabe is a bad man, however if this government does not want his regime
to win a propaganda victory then they need to put their hands in their pockets
and find £10M. A drop in the ocean compared to the amount of money they are
desperate to spend killing innocents in Iraq. Why should the game we love suffer
to keep warmonger Blair and his cronies happy. Ralph, England

Why, why, why are cricket and rugby always the targets for the politicians to
use as scapegoats? If it were the England football team going, no-one would turn
a hair. Just like they didn't when Zimbabwe sent a team here to the Commonwealth
Games, where they came 22nd, picking up one gold and one silver medal.

If the politicians wish to make a point then it is up to them - but this lot
seem to lack any fibre. Of course, if the cricketers don't go and there is a
backlash of some sort, President Blair and his cronies will be holding their
hands up and saying "it's not our fault - we didn't tell them not to go!"
Barry, England

If they go, the England party, must make sure they completely boycott
any related ceremonial events that will provide Mugabe and his henchmen with any
favourable publicity

Robin, Scotland

Why should England boycott? the British government has not imposed any
sanctions or cut off ties with Zimbabwe, so why are they expecting the cricket
team to? it does not make any sense. Atif Siddiqui, England

Put political considerations aside for one moment and consider the safety of
our cricketers. There is nothing Mugabe would like better than a spontaneous
display of bottle throwing that targets the English team, thus humiliating the
country he most despises, and rants and raves against on a regular basis. I feel
sure that his plans for such a spontaneous display are well in hand in
preparation for the arrival of the English cricketers. Sue, UK

How can the government justify leaning on the ECB not to play in the world
cup in Zimbabwe but not propose or enforce any other sanctions against Mugabe?
England, morally, should not play in Zimbabwe under the present regime however,
the government stance is highly hypocritical. For this reason, my opinion is
that the ECB should proceed as intended. Darryl Ward, England

It's a bit hard to take all this debate so seriously - we ALL know the
cricketers shouldn't go. Everyone. It's just a question of who will be brave
enough to make the decision, and suffer the consequences - financial, political,
or simply in terms of publicity. Who's responsible? We ALL are - the public, the
ICC, the ECB, the Government, Nasser Hussain, the other players... Who's got the
(cricket) balls to tell the simple truth? At the moment, it seems like no-one
has... Paul Bernal, UK

Unless the cricketing nations in the World Cup jointly take an eleventh hour
stand to boycott games in Zimbabwe it seems inevitable that England must honour
their contractual commitment to play there. If they do go, the England party,
players and officials, must make sure they completely boycott any related
ceremonial or other direct contact events that will provide Mugabe and his
henchmen with any favourable publicity.

The government's stance on compensation is the correct one. Were they to pay
up on this one, how many claims would follow from other commercial or sporting
organisations in the period ahead. Robin, Scotland

Cricket is being used as an easy target. Blair is too concerned with his
popularity to risk losing support by banning companies from trading with
Zimbabwe, but he is happy to tell the cricketers they shouldn't. He doesn't even
have the bottle to make a decision, but throws the responsibility at someone
else for them to take the flack. Ian Parkin, England

Nasser, you have my every sympathy. I find it hard to believe that the
Government, ECB and ICB are all so weak-kneed, spineless, yellow-bellied and
pathetic that they have to defer the decision to you. In these circumstances I
support WHATEVER you decide because you've been put in an impossible position.
Good luck. Neil, UK

If Zimbabwe had reached the football World Cup Finals and been drawn
against England, would we have refused to play them?

Bulkwark, UK

Why should England boycott playing in Zimbabwe? isn't a major event like the
cricket World Cup supposed to bring people together? Let's just play the game in
Zimbabwe and just forget, for a few hours the trouble which is being caused. If
they boycott playing in Zimbabwe then when they are asked to play in England
they are going to say no and whose fault is that going to be? Ben
Norris, England

Before the politicians start having a go at a dozen guys hitting a ball
around a park perhaps they would like to consider the fact that 400 UK companies
still do business with Zimbabwe and UK investment there is more than £100m. That
is what I call supporting Mugabe's regime.

Cricket is the easy target when they just want to pay lip service to this big
morality thing. Mugabe is not going to stand or fall on a cricket match, it's
the state of the economy that will bring him down.

Britain is happy to trade with any number of dictatorships, ship arms to any
number of unstable regions and mine diamonds from the cheapest source. When the
major hypocrisies have been cleared up, then they can start fiddling about on
the periphery. Mark, Germany

Are we to assume that if Zimbabwe had reached the world cup finals and been
drawn against England we would have refused to play them ? Bulkwark,
UK

The government does not appear to realise that the money that is in question
is used to fund cricket from grassroots to the top level. The state of cricket
in England is already in a perilous state before depriving the game of much
needed money. If England were to boycott the game in Zimbabwe, not be
compensated by the government and then do well in the World Cup they should then
boycott any efforts by 10 Downing Street to cash in on this success.
Sarmad, UK

There would be no consistency in pulling out of Zimbabwe. After all, the
English football team will be playing Turkey in Turkey, who are responsible for
the suffering of 1000's of Kurds, English athletes will participate at Olympics
in China in 2008 and Israel remain a member of UEFA, and so the list goes on.

What I understand from this is that the death of tens of white farmers in
Zimbabwe is worse than the death of 1000's of Kurds, Tibetans and Palestinians.
The fact is, they are all equally terrible, so let's be consistent, either
boycott the majority of sporting events, or treat sport as something separate to
politics. James, Chester, UK

what about the thousands of supporters who will in Zimbabwe - or are
they not important is this whole event?

Andy, South
Africa

I'm a little confused on why there is such a big fuss on who should fork out
the compensation. Surely in all this war of words the supporters have been
forgotten - those that have saved up to follow and support their team through
the world cup. The amount that they will lose will surpass the amount being
debated here.

Also on this issue all I have heard regarding security and safety is of 16
players and their entourage, what about the thousands of supporters who will in
Zimbabwe - or are they not important is this whole event? Andy, South
Africa

Yes, Government should pay for Zimbabwe boycott. Jawad, Pakistan

If Nasser Hussain shakes Mugabe's hand it will be used as a political act by
Mugabe. It will bolster an evil regime. However, both parties are to blame. The
ECB knew about this problem a long time ago as well as the government. The
suggestion that cricket will go bankrupt because England miss one 1-day
international is laughable. If the game goes ahead shame on Nasser, any player
who goes, the ECB and the government. Jim M, UK

How can you not play cricket when UK banks and other business are operating
all over Zimbabwe? Tessa Jowell referred to "the deteriorating security
situation" - yet that has stayed the same, only the government's need to appear
"ethical" in its foreign policy to legitimise Iraq needs the matches to be
cancelled. The Government is happy to sell Hawk jets to Indonesia and still
trade in Zimbabwe - why deny people the chance to pay and watch cricket?
Joe , UK

At what price do we support the atrocities of Zimbabwe - £10 million is how
cheaply a nations suffering can be bought, but then it is only Zimbabwe, they
have no oil, little gold, few diamonds. Whilst Nasser fiddles with his bat,
Harare burns. Perhaps it is time to stand up and be counted. With the lack of
moral courage being shown today, England insults it's own past and heritage.
Andrew, U.K

With the lack of moral courage being shown today, England insults it's
own past and heritage

Andrew, U.K

Why there is even a question as to whether we should play in Zimbabwe
astounds me, Mugabe is a dictator and should not be further financed by England
cricketers! Can Blair not get off his fence for once and make a decision for
this country or will he have to phone the White House first! Alex,
England

Remember the original meeting between Wilson and Smith at GIB. The agreement
was yes you can go and we [the British Government] will pay you ex Pounds. All
that money has not been paid. So if England go. Mugabe could in theory hold our
cricketers hostage. Until such monies are paid. Mr. Ian Newton,
England

A humble message to Nasser Hussain. Let the politician's boycott whatever
regime they please but you don't have to Nasser because all the cricket players
(any nationality) are brothers. Go there and try to win the world cup!
Sunil Kuruneru, Hong Kong (China)

LUSAKA (Reuters) - Zimbabwe President Robert
Mugabe has dismissedreports of a plan for him to retire early, while
England's cricketers havelessened his country's isolation by deciding to
play there in defiance oftheir government.

Zimbabwe's
embattled president, whose party denied on Monday any rolein a "Mugabe exit
plan", said it would be "foolhardy" for him to step downafter winning a new
term in office just months ago.

"Only a few months ago, the
people elected me to serve them and itwould be absolutely
counter-revolutionary and foolhardy for me to stepdown," Mugabe said in
neighbouring Zambia on Tuesday.

"I am not retiring. I will
never, never go into exile. I fought forZimbabwe and when I die I will be
buried in Zimbabwe, nowhere else," he saidat a ceremony to honour founding
Zambian president and liberation heroKenneth Kaunda.

The
78-year-old Mugabe, who has ruled since 1980, faces internationalisolation
over his seizure of white-owned farm land for redistribution tolandless
blacks, a controversial election victory last March and Zimbabwe'shuman
rights record.

But England confirmed on Tuesday they will play
their World Cupcricket fixture in Zimbabwe on February 13 despite opposition
from thegovernment of former colonial power Britain.

World
champions Australia, Pakistan, India, Namibia and theNetherlands are also
scheduled to play in Zimbabwe in six of 54 World Cupties.

Mugabe's ruling ZANU-PF party, the opposition Movement for DemocraticChange
and South Africa denied on Monday any role in a plan for Mugabe tostep down,
said by a Zimbabwean newspaper to be aimed at ending thecountry's worsening
political and economic crisis.

Kaunda praised Mugabe for
leading Zimbabwe from colonial rule, butwarned against the dangers of
seeking revenge, adding that Africans had morepressing problems like the
HIV/AIDS pandemic and crushing poverty to worryabout.

The
MDC mayor of Harare, who was detained at the weekend under newlaws critics
say are designed to stifle opposition, said on Tuesday hisarrest had been
ordered "from above" and that he had been threatened by amember of the
police force.

FOURTH YEAR OF RECESSION

The
economy is in its fourth year of recession, and critics say theland seizure
campaign has worsened food shortages threatening seven millionZimbabweans
with starvation.

Mugabe accuses Britain of spearheading an
international campaignagainst his policies.

Zimbabwe's
Sunday Mirror said authorities in Zimbabwe, South Africaand Britain had
proposed a plan for Mugabe to hand power to a chosensuccessor before the end
of his current term in 2006. The reports were alsocarried by international
media.

Despite the denials senior African diplomats said they
believedbehind-the-scenes initiatives were under way.

"Mugabe will not go along with any public pronouncements that cast himin bad
light or as weak. He would like to come out as having made a decisionby his
good grace. The reports in the newspaper were a bit premature andthat's why
there are these denials," said one African ambassador in
London.

"In private there are many ZANU-PF men, including the
president's ownmen, who would like him to announce his plans in the hope
that if he worksout his own exit, the future will still belong to them as a
ruling party,"said Brian Raftopoulos, a professor at Zimbabwe's Institute of
DevelopmentStudies.

Official talks between the MDC and
ZANU-PF on the political crisiscollapsed last year when the opposition
challenged Mugabe's election victoryover MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai. Many
Western countries also condemned thepoll as fraudulent.

Mugabe's retirement plans have long been the subject of speculationand last
month ZANU-PF was forced to make a statement that the veteranleader would
serve his full term.

The Sunday Mirror said the plan would see
Mugabe handing power toEmmerson Mnangagwa, the speaker of parliament and his
close confidant. Aninterim government would then lead the country until
parliamentary andpresidential elections in 2005.

Zimbabwean
President Robert Mugabe has lashed out at Australia over threatsto boycott
cricket World Cup matches in his country, branding the people ofthe fellow
former British colony as ex-criminals.

Britain and Australia have urged
their cricket teams to boycott next month'sWorld Cup matches in Zimbabwe in
protest at Mr Mugabe's policies and humanrights record.

"Australia
has criminal blood. There are criminals who were shipped to thatplace and
settled there. It is not surprising they are speaking like that,that no one
should step into Zimbabwe to play cricket," Mr Mugabe toldreporters during a
visit to neighbouring Zambia.

Britain transported convicts to Australia
in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Australia is favoured to retain the World
Cup, but has come under pressurefrom the Federal Government to boycott its
match in Zimbabwe.

England's cricket chiefs are due to announce whether
they will play theirmatch in Zimbabwe or comply with Prime Minister Tony
Blair's call for aboycott.

"There should be no racism in sport. They
should not mix sports andpolitics. For sport, people come from different
backgrounds and so you can'tbring in politics," Mr Mugabe said.

Mr
Mugabe is accused by his opposition at home and abroad of riggingelections
last March and of devastating Zimbabwe's economy and causingwidespread
hunger through his policy of seizing white-owned farms to give tolandless
blacks.

Maher keeping

On the field, Queensland Bulls captain
Jimmy Maher will take over asAustralia's wicketkeeper for tomorrow's one-day
international against SriLanka in Brisbane.

Maher is also likely to
open the batting, with usual wicketkeeper AdamGilchrist being rested for the
match.

Australian coach John Buchanan says the decision to use Maher
aswicketkeeper was made with an eye on next month's World Cup.

With
Gilchrist coming off the back of a tiring Ashes campaign, selectorshave been
worried that an injury to him could leave them without a crediblereplacement
when the World Cup starts in southern Africa next month.

"What can
potentially happen over at the World Cup is that Adam suffers aminor injury
which would make him unavailable for a game," Buchanan said.

"We're
really trying to cover as many bases as we can and now's a goodopportunity
in which to do that."

Meanwhile, injured paceman Glenn McGrath has rated
himself a good chance toplay in Brisbane.

McGrath had a solid workout
during a team training session at the Gabba thismorning but signalled that a
final decision on his fitness would not be madeuntil the morning of the
match.

"If it feels like it does now then I'll probably definitely play,"
he said.

"It was good to have good bowl at full pace and I hope it pulls
up prettywell in the morning."